4 ms·
> Money comes and goes without accounting meeting financial standards. That does not strictly mean that the money has been embezzled, only that the DOD and Worl
by Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago
> Money comes and goes without accounting meeting financial standards. That does not strictly mean that the money has been embezzled, only that the DOD and World Bank are unable to demonstrate that it hasn't been.
Can you think of a better place to embezzle? Its risk-free without any accounting standards. 100% that embezzling is taking place and at a large scale.
- zdragnar 2y agoGiven that the DOD is the largest employer in the USA at nearly a million people, there's almost certainly some small amount going on at a minimum.
- gwerbret 2y agoWalmart alone employs 1.6 million people: https://corporate.walmart.com/about/location-facts https://corporate.walmart.com/about/location-facts
- zdragnar 2y agoThe 770,000 number for the DOD is just the civilian employee count. It becomes the "largest" when you also include the 2.1 million active service members of the military. I definitely could have worded that better.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoHow do you know it’s risk-free? I’ve heard the budget battles between the Navy and Air Force can get particularly severe.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y ago> How do you know it’s risk-free? Because you can't convict someone for embezzlement if you can't prove it. And you can't prove it if there are no records. This is the purpose of proper financial record-keeping standards - to know where the money is and where it came from and where it goes.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoWhy can’t one faction in the pentagon do something, other than trying to get a conviction, that still induces risks on another faction?
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y agoLike what? I'm not sure what that could be, but a general answer would be that neither faction wants too much scrutiny. They would therefore have mutual self-interest in maintaining a system where they can keep crappy records (or none) while still keeping mountains of money.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoInfluencing relative promotion prospects?
- Eddy_Viscosity2 2y agoI mean maybe. They probably are doing everything they can do maximize their own budgets, but not so hard that they might expose themselves to more oversight or regulation which means the no real change to how the system operates.
- qingcharles 2y agoIt's hard to identify. I audited a Sheriff's account once because there was constant chatter that the funds were being misused. Out of an entire year I could only find one line item that was questionable (it was still a police item, but it should have come from a different fund). What isn't clear is this: if say the Sheriff buys 100 riot shields from Company X, does his cousin own Company X and there is a kickback or a favor? I couldn't answer those questions because they would require a whole new level of investigation.
- lesuorac 2y agoPay the sheriff in crypto then ;) If there's an outflow from Company X back to Brother back to Sheriff then there's some clear kickbacks!
- wkrsz 2y agounless the kickback takes form of cash or favors
- lesuorac 2y agoCash is for criminal activity so if the CEO is withdrawing large amounts of it then clearly he's committing some crime.
- wkrsz 2y agoThey'll figure something out, some ideas: 1. The cash doesn't have to be withdrawn all at once, it can happen over the course of months 2. The cash can come from earlier cash transactions, not withdrawal 3. Payment can be indirect: CEO donates to a non-profit that hires sheriffs family 4. Instead of kickback the CEO can repay the sheriff with another favor at future time I hope we're not planning to outlaw cash and implement total invigilation of every transaction just to make corruption slightly more inconvenient.